If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It doesn't do anythign of those. None. It doesn't mean that the same package will run on all distributions as they need to be compiled against the libaries used in the platfrom.
1. The situation would be the same as it is with Debian and Ubuntu at the moment: both use DEB but the packages aren't compatible. Only difference is that they would be even more incompatible between various major distributios.
2. New users would still have to download packages for their own distribution
3. Propietary software vendors would still have to provide different binaries for different distributions (in most cases at least).
4. The packaking would still be done by distributions so there would be absolutely no difference from developers point of view.

Your second point has nothing to do with the RPM/DPM debate. The horrible user experience has nothing to do with this either. The package management is already abstracted using PackageKit and therefor it doesn't matter what package manager backend you'r using and the interface can remain the same. The AppStream project tries to solve it but again it doesn't have anything to do with this.

Originally Posted by Delgrade

No, because you're assuming that the package format is the *only* reason why you can't install DEB files on RPM systems and visa versa. Which is nonsense, since both formats are nothing more than an archive with some package metadata associated with it - it's not all that hard to transform one into the other. The real problem is stuff like the names of package dependencies - one one system (regardless of RPM vs DEB), No, because you're assuming that the package format is the *only* reason why you can't install DEB files on RPM systems and visa versa. Which is nonsense, since both formats are nothing more than an archive with some package metadata associated with it - it's not all that hard to transform one into the other. The real problem is stuff like the names of package dependencies - one one system (regardless of RPM vs DEB), you depend on "libexpat", while on another it's called "expat". Or "node" vs "nodejs", or "node.js". Changing the file format doesn't solve *anything*. you depend on "libexpat", while on another it's called "expat". Or "node" vs "nodejs", or "node.js". Changing the file format doesn't solve *anything*.

OK we should find a way then to make distros something like a uniform platform which everyone can built upon.

Because its a mess and frustrating for the user as it is. Teho and Delgrade described where the problems are and those have to be fixed.

The thing is that I don't see it as a problem. The benefits of having sinle core distribution or even package manager doesn't ammount to its downsides. I'm thrilled with the fact that there's a lot of unification going on between distributions at the moment; systemd for one unifies most of the important system configuration files. If distributions would simply stick to upstream software without patching I think that the situation would be good enough. If there's someday going to be one package manager to rule them all (maybe it could be Lennart's next project or something) I guess it would be cool but it wouldn't really change anything. It's not possible to have binary compatibility between distribution in a way that it would make sense. One way to solve the problem is using bundless but that has nothing to do with RPM/DEB and they would still be needed for the "core" system.

The thing is that I don't see it as a problem. The benefits of having sinle core distribution or even package manager doesn't ammount to its downsides. I'm thrilled with the fact that there's a lot of unification going on between distributions at the moment; systemd for one unifies most of the important system configuration files. If distributions would simply stick to upstream software without patching I think that the situation would be good enough. If there's someday going to be one package manager to rule them all (maybe it could be Lennart's next project or something) I guess it would be cool but it wouldn't really change anything. It's not possible to have binary compatibility between distribution in a way that it would make sense. One way to solve the problem is using bundless but that has nothing to do with RPM/DEB and they would still be needed for the "core" system.

I don't know the technicalities but i see this kind of diversity a bit problematic. And the whole installation thing becomes messier when you want to install something commercial.

I don't know the technicalities but i see this kind of diversity a bit problematic. And the whole installation thing becomes messier when you want to install something commercial.

With Something commercial? You mean what like games? Oh wait there's Desura that covers all the gaming that actually supports linux for the time being for that, and it checks for missing libraries and will download a local copy if you're missing them. If you must use proprietary drivers you should be using the versions from your repos if you're at that level, and there's pretty much nothing else that should really matter to the consumer that should be independently downloaded outside of the repos other than maybe flash depending upon the distro..

Besides this whole concept of One True Distro (tm) is idiotic, the fact that we have diversity means that we can actually try out new ideas such as unification under /usr, different init systems, different desktop environments, etc as opposed to being stuck in a single environment unable to change. The simple fact is that this diversity is part of what draws people to Linux, that you can do whatever you want as opposed to being locked down into any one idea. Because of this if we did end up unifying everything into the One True Distro (tm), you'd have perhaps more development on this one distro compared to before, however it would be a massive net loss in development overall.

You have to remember, when people develop for the FOSS ecosystem it's either because of 1 of 2 things.

Either 1. The developer is independently itching their own scratch, and then as a bonus is gaining prestige within the FOSS community by releasing their patch, or 2. The developer is working for someone else and is scratching that person's itch, usually because they are being paid, and are seeking out that reward. We require both of these groups to be at prime development but going for the One True Distro (tm) alienates the first group

OK we should find a way then to make distros something like a uniform platform which everyone can built upon.

There's an app for that.
Actually a whole OS.
Actually multiple ones. At least win and osx. Why don't people use those if that's a requirement for their needs/software/develpment process/personal happiness?

With Something commercial? You mean what like games? Oh wait there's Desura that covers all the gaming that actually supports linux for the time being for that, and it checks for missing libraries and will download a local copy if you're missing them. If you must use proprietary drivers you should be using the versions from your repos if you're at that level, and there's pretty much nothing else that should really matter to the consumer that should be independently downloaded outside of the repos other than maybe flash depending upon the distro..

No not only games. Matlab for example which is quite popular or CAD programs or whatever. You cant get those through repos or just download something and install in any distro you want. It might work but in many cases there are issues.

Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf

Besides this whole concept of One True Distro (tm) is idiotic, the fact that we have diversity means that we can actually try out new ideas such as unification under /usr, different init systems, different desktop environments, etc as opposed to being stuck in a single environment unable to change. The simple fact is that this diversity is part of what draws people to Linux, that you can do whatever you want as opposed to being locked down into any one idea. Because of this if we did end up unifying everything into the One True Distro (tm), you'd have perhaps more development on this one distro compared to before, however it would be a massive net loss in development overall.

I don't want a single distro. I want something like a common core if possible. Something that guaranties interoperability. A set of libraries or tools or whatever in which the people above that layer can do whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf

You have to remember, when people develop for the FOSS ecosystem it's either because of 1 of 2 things.

Either 1. The developer is independently itching their own scratch, and then as a bonus is gaining prestige within the FOSS community by releasing their patch, or 2. The developer is working for someone else and is scratching that person's itch, usually because they are being paid, and are seeking out that reward. We require both of these groups to be at prime development but going for the One True Distro (tm) alienates the first group

And not developing with ease of use in mind alienates the person that matters more. The user.

No not only games. Matlab for example which is quite popular or CAD programs or whatever. You cant get those through repos or just download something and install in any distro you want. It might work but in many cases there are issues.

Except wait, tell me what regular consumer uses those? Let's see... Science, Business, and sometimes Students. For the first two it's the IT department's job to handle those, not the user, making your complaint meaningless for them. For the last, for the student to be using either of those AND linux means that they're probably pretty technically skilled and so that shouldn't be a problem.

Originally Posted by 89c51

I don't want a single distro. I want something like a common core if possible. Something that guaranties interoperability. A set of libraries or tools or whatever in which the people above that layer can do whatever they want.

Oh you mean like the LSB? FHS and a couple other standards? oh wait no you want more than that don't you? like you said you want a common set of libraries. Except oh wait we already do have such standards, they're called GTK and Qt. That's how Skype and Secondlife for instance get away with doing what they do.

Originally Posted by 89c51

And not developing with ease of use in mind alienates the person that matters more. The user.

You forget that the developer is a user as well, however no the user is not the most important in the FOSS ecosystem, it is the developer, the bug reporter, or any other contributer. The average user that does not develop, report bugs, or otherwise is completely meaningless in the FOSS ecosystem. It's the people who contribute in some form who matter.